The supernova event of 1987

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 2898
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:49 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:5 members

The supernova event of 1987

by Vincen » Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:03 pm
The supernova event of 1987 is interesting in that there is still no evidence of the neutron star that current theory says should have remained after a supernova of that size. This is in spite of the fact that many of the most sensitive instruments ever developed have searched for the tell-tale pulse of radiation that neutron stars emit. Thus, current theory is wrong in claiming that supernovas of a certain size always produce neutron stars.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A) Most supernova remnants that astronomers have detected have a neutron star nearby.

B) Sensitive astronomical instruments have detected neutron stars much farther away than the location of the 1987 supernova.

C) The supernova of 1987 was the first that scientists were able to observe in progress.

D) Several important features of the 1987 supernova are correctly predicted by the current theory.

E) Some neutron stars are known to have come into existence by a cause other than a supernova explosion.

The OA is B.

Can any expert go option by option telling me why are incorrect (or correct)? Thanks.

Legendary Member
Posts: 2276
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:10 am
Followed by:3 members

by VJesus12 » Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:23 pm
Hello Vincen.

I think options D and E are irrelevant to the argument.

But, with options A and C I don't know how to conclude they are incorrect.

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:18 pm
Thanked: 180 times
Followed by:12 members

by EconomistGMATTutor » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:34 am
The conclusion: Supernovas of a certain size do not always produce neutron stars.

The evidence: There is no evidence of the neutron star that current theory says should have remained after the supernova of 1987 even though many of the most sensitive instruments ever developed have searched for the tell-tale pulse of radiation that neutron stars emit.

Assumption: If there was a neutron star, the instruments would have detected it. If this were true, then the argument would hold, the conclusion would be strengthened. This is what Choice B strongly implies. The instruments used were more than capable of detecting the neutron star -- they've even detected stars much farther away.

Choice A mentions supernova events in general, but not specify their size. It does nothing to support the conclusion that supernovas of a certain size don't always produce neutron stars.
Choice C is irrelevant. Whether that supernova was first, second, etc. does not matter.
Choice D leaves out any mention of the neutron star that is central to this argument.
Choice E brings in an "other," something to watch out for. That neutron stars can come about without a supernova explosion doesn't affect the discussion of this supernova explosion.


I'm available if you'd like any follow up.
GMAT Prep From The Economist
We offer 70+ point score improvement money back guarantee.
Our average student improves 98 points.

Image